Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) has been proposed for the treatment of several acute and chronic syndromes, such as corneal epithelial defects and dry eye syndrome, gum bleeding during oral surgery, and in orthopaedic surgery. We hypothesized that PRGF, rather than PRP, could be more effective because of its intrinsic characteristics in promoting the healing of intestinal anastomosis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PRP and PRGF on various parameters of anastomotic healing in a swine model. METHODS: Eight female pigs were randomly assigned to two groups and subjected to hand sewn jeujuno-jejunal appositional extramucosal anastomoses. For each animal, a total of six anastomoses were performed: two were considered controls and received no treatment, while the remaining four anastomoses were treated with PRP or PRGF of which both were prepared at a platelet concentration that was respectively 3.4-fold and 2.81-fold higher than the original platelet count. In each animal, either PRP or PRGF was used as a treatment, to avoid interference among products. Animals were euthanized after 8 days and the anastomoses were evaluated and compared for the presence of adhesions, anastomotic leakage, bursting pressure, and histological appearance. RESULTS: The concentration of platelets in PRP was 3.41-fold higher (range, 3.20-4.24) that the concentration in whole blood, while the concentration in PRGF was 2.81-fold higher (range, 2.89-4.88). The results obtained from the present study highlighted that there are no differences between anastomotic samples treated with either PRP or PRGF preparations, except for a significant increase in epithelization of the intestinal mucosa at the anastomotic site in the PRGF group. CONCLUSIONS: Both PRP and PRGF suspensions should be considered a safe strategy and represent a relatively low-cost technology that is flexible enough to be applied in several therapeutic fields. No true benefit could be proven in our study compared to the no treatment following anastomoses formation, with the exception of enhanced epithelization of the mucosa in the PRGF group.